Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[JimBowie1958]

Wouldn't it be if there were "definitive proof" God exists that we wouldn't even be discussing it? It'd be like argueing whether the Sun exists wouldn't it? And yet, for millenia we've been having this debate with neither side apparently being able to once-and-for-all decisively win the debate (since we keep having it.)

Can't we then infer from that that a)there is no definitive proof for God existing, and b)there's no definitive proof God doesn't exist either.

No, you cant infer that because fringe groups simply ignore facts and reason to cling to their fringe beliefs. That is why they are fringe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Substitute "the Easter Bunny" for the term "god".

Ever hear of somebody killing somebody else over whether the Easter Bunny was a white bunny or a black bunny?

"Neupe". But I have heard of religionists killing other religionists because they were the wrong kind of religionist.

And we have all heard of the Death Camps and Killing Fields that atheists have sent countless millions of people to just because.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wouldn't it be if there were "definitive proof" God exists that we wouldn't even be discussing it? It'd be like argueing whether the Sun exists wouldn't it? And yet, for millenia we've been having this debate with neither side apparently being able to once-and-for-all decisively win the debate (since we keep having it.)

Can't we then infer from that that a)there is no definitive proof for God existing, and b)there's no definitive proof God doesn't exist either.

Substitute "the Easter Bunny" for the term "god".

Yeah, that's like substituting the word 'egg' for 'Hollie's Brain'....yeah, actually that works.

Substituting apples for apples works, and 'Easter bunny' does not equal 'the Creator' you stupid fucktard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

1) because an eternal object or being by definition has no 'before it'.
2) because you are an idiot and a liar.

1a) because the eternal being that Christianity stole from Judaism and earlier came from Canaanite polytheism is an invention of mankind deriving from all the tales, fables and superstitions that preceded your version of an eternal being.

1a) Christianity is a form of Judaism, *****, so nothing was stolen. Good grief pick up a ******* book sometime.
1b) Seriously, take a critical thinking class, as you barely register on the 'thunk scale'.

 

[Hollie]

Wouldn't it be if there were "definitive proof" God exists that we wouldn't even be discussing it? It'd be like argueing whether the Sun exists wouldn't it? And yet, for millenia we've been having this debate with neither side apparently being able to once-and-for-all decisively win the debate (since we keep having it.)

Can't we then infer from that that a)there is no definitive proof for God existing, and b)there's no definitive proof God doesn't exist either.

Substitute "the Easter Bunny" for the term "god".

Yeah, that's like substituting the word 'egg' for 'Hollie's Brain'....yeah, actually that works.

Substituting apples for apples works, and 'Easter bunny' does not equal 'the Creator' you stupid fucktard.

Lovely folks, you angry, fundie cranks.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Lovely folks, you angry, fundie cranks.

Maybe you and Hollie have a history I'm unaware of Jim, but based just on this thread, that was really angry, hostile, and out of line.

 

[sealybobo]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

1) because an eternal object or being by definition has no 'before it'.
2) because you are an idiot and a liar.

The spot 2 feet in front of your nose has always been there. There may not have been a wall in the background, a planet, a sun to shine on that spot, etc.

But the spot 2 feet in front of you was there 2 billion, 2 trillion, and even infinity years ago. It may have been just a point in dead empty black space, but it was there and will be there in 2 trillion years even in Infinity years.

So is that spot 2 feet in front of your face god?

And since you are going to heaven for eternity, are you a god? ******* idiots.

Hey, dumbass, a spot two feet in front of you cannot be an 'eternal' object. You apparently have no clue what the ******* word 'eternal' means. So trying to discuss the subject with you is like shooting fish in a barrel as you display your ignorance to the world.

I am total fine with continuing to give you these opportunities for the sake of lurkers, as your are the epitome of an ignorant, witless atheist who makes claims that he knows nothing about.

Oh, and now is where you tell me that you are not an atheist?

roflmao

You are so cute. You and your invisible man who watches you jack off and you feel guilty about it later. Sad but cute.

Eternal object? Give me an example of an eternal object?

Do you think you are smart and I am dumb? Did I say something that made you think you are smart and I am dumb? What was it? Something about an eternal object?

Boy you got me good, NOT. LOL

 

[sealybobo]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

1) because an eternal object or being by definition has no 'before it'.
2) because you are an idiot and a liar.

1a) because the eternal being that Christianity stole from Judaism and earlier came from Canaanite polytheism is an invention of mankind deriving from all the tales, fables and superstitions that preceded your version of an eternal being.

They will ignore these facts and then call you and I stupid for doubting or not believing? ******* idiots.

Hope you had a nice long weekend.

 

[Boss]

We often hear the God-haters chortle... you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy. I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic. Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists, that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.

You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy. So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with. Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love?

As you can see, the "existence" of something can be physical or nonphysical, or even spiritual. So in order to evaluate the existence of something spiritual, we have to use spiritual evidence, since physical evidence doesn't logically apply. We don't demand spiritual evidence to prove the physical.... if you demonstrate how rain is caused with physical science, and someone says...well God tells me that rain is His tears... what would you say to that? It's backward, mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging? Right? Well, that is someone applying spiritual evidence to the physical, and rejecting physical evidence. Yes, it's kind of stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as demanding physical evidence to support a spiritual entity, and rejecting spiritual evidence.

Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence, we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony. This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality. We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. Since our very origins.

Perhaps this is where we can interject some relative physical science, from none other than the father of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin points out that behavioral traits which are inherent in a species, exist for some fundamental reason pertaining to the advancement of the species, otherwise they are discarded over time through natural selection. No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason. Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason. We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one.

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!

Your arguement is flawed by the beginning of the second graph,

"You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity."

For a spiritual being to manifest physical reality, it must be likewise have physical substance. Futher, if a spiritual being or realm even exists you'd have to be able to prove that empirically which you didn't.

There is no flaw, you are factually incorrect in your assessment. Something does not have to possess "physical substance" in order to manifest a physical reality. Love would be the most obvious example of this. As for "empirical proof" ...I challenge you to "empirically prove" anything. You see, this is a very difficult criteria to meet because most everything can be questioned. When I say "definitive proof" it means the proof is definitely proof. Epirical? That's a different matter, even reality itself is not empirical.

"Does a thought exist? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love? "

Thoughts exist. They're small electrical impulses we can measure with an electroencephalagraph (EEG.)

No, I am sorry, a small electrical impulse is not a thought. It may be something that happens in the event of a thought, it may indicate that a thought is happening, but the electrical impulse itself, is not a thought. The same is true for chemical reactions associated with love. Incidentally, the same chemical reactions and electrical impulses happen when a human is experiencing spiritual connection.

Without defining and quantifying a spiritual realm actually exists, 'spiritual evidence' doesn't exist either. Least not in any way so you can boast you have definitive proof of it existing. The Bible or any other book does not prove anything other than someone wrote it. The books "Twilight" and "Harry Potter" for example do not prove vampires or wizards exist. Nor does the Bible prove God exists or people can live to be 900. Remeber many people have since written books utilizing a deity. From the Book of Mormon to Scientology. Is the LDS church right about theirclaims because some book says so? Is the universe in fact trillions instead of billions of years old because Scientology says so?

Things do not have to be quantified or defined in order to exist. I have previously presented the "Jupiter example" to demonstrate this. Did the planet Jupiter exist before astronomers discovered it? Of course, it did, for billions of years. The fact that we hadn't quantified or defined it, did not mean it wasn't in existence.

The Bible is not at issue here. My argument does not claim God is proven to exist because The Bible says so. I've also not argued that an existing God must be a deity or conform to any religious incarnation. This was not presented as part of my argument, yet you want to interject them here and refute an argument that wasn't made.

The most logical proof for God is Time. Time exists as a dimension of a physical universe. However, when we examine Time itself, it is only a perception we retain as humans existing in a physical universe. Time only exists in reality through our perception of the present. In other words, there is no existence of physical past or future time. We have evidence that past time existed as present, at one time. But the past time no longer exists. The future time may exist as present time, at some point, it doesn't presently exist. The time in which I began typing this paragraph, no longer exists, it is part of time passed. The time in which I type the next paragraph is not here yet, it doesn't yet exist.

Now, the time has arrived for me to type the next paragraph, but before I can finish the first word, that time has passed. Already, you are reading evidence of time which has passed and no longer exists. That time will never exist again, and no one knows what future time may exist. Our only perception of time is the very instant of present time.

 

[Boss]

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory. And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened. So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG.

I've seen this theory presented repeatedly, although I've never seen evidence to support the theory. In any event, even the most enthusiastic supporter of the theory must contemplate, what made this happen? I assume you understand Newton's Laws of Motion... so by what rationale do you reckon all this "stuff" floating around just up and decided to coalesce into a really tight ball? And what in heaven's name enabled the stuff to suddenly reverse that phenomenon and "bang" the stuff in a totally different direction?

Now you need to be corrected and schooled on this theory in general. There is no proof the Big Bang ever happened, it is only a theory. The greatest evidence for the theory is the motion of the universe. If the universe is expanding, physics and logic say that if Newton's Laws of Motion are valid, then some force began this motion at some point in time. However... and this is a big deal... we've recently discovered the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating. This is totally contradictory to a theory of a Big Bang because that's not what should be happening. In any energy event like a Big Bang, the velocity of matter should decrease with time because of friction... again, Newtonian Laws of physics. This has caused physicists such as Stephen Hawking to question earlier theories of a Big Bang. It has prompted the creation of a new form of math, quantum physics. The more we think we know, the more we find out how little we actually know.

 

[sealybobo]

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory. And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened. So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG.

so by what rationale do you reckon all this "stuff" floating around just up and decided to coalesce into a really tight ball? And what in heaven's name enabled the stuff to suddenly reverse that phenomenon and "bang" the stuff in a totally different direction?

There is no proof the Big Bang ever happened, it is only a theory.

the velocity of matter should decrease with time because of friction... again, Newtonian Laws of physics.

this has caused physicists such as Stephen Hawking to question earlier theories of a Big Bang. It has prompted the creation of a new form of math, quantum physics. The more we think we know, the more we find out how little we actually know.

It MAY have come out of a black hole. A rip between 2 universes? I don't know. Do you?

We don't know why the universe is expanding faster and faster. They use to think it was going to come back. Now??? Do you know?

Yes it did get him to question his theories. That's what science does. Theists don't. You are a half breed theist much like you are probably a half breed indian. I get it.

You are right about the more we know. But what we never get any closer to is that a god exists. In fact, we don't even consider a god when we contemplate but I'll tell you what we will do for you is keep an eye out for him and let you know if we find him. Until then, we see no god(s) out there.

What is your theory? A creature not bound by the laws of physics and the physical world did it all? And he loves you? Chances are if something made us, it doesn't even know you are alive. You're like a Tardigrade to me.

So actually, I can entertain your idea of a creator. But please don't tell me you talk to him and he cares for you.

See, this is why I call you a half breed, just like your injun ancestory. You don't believe the organized religions, have your own theories on why something must have created, but like those organized religions, you too think this god cares for you and helps you? Talk about wanting to have it both ways... But I commend you on at least admitting organized religions are not necessary and they are wrong when they say believe them or burn in hell.

But then you believe in heaven? Do you? Oh yea, you don't believe in "heaven" persay but some sort of non physical blablabla where your soul lives on. But a fish doesn't get to go to heaven. Funny a lot of what you believe comes from the bible. You are a bastard of christianity. LOL

 

[Boss]

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory. And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened. So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG.

so by what rationale do you reckon all this "stuff" floating around just up and decided to coalesce into a really tight ball? And what in heaven's name enabled the stuff to suddenly reverse that phenomenon and "bang" the stuff in a totally different direction?

There is no proof the Big Bang ever happened, it is only a theory.

the velocity of matter should decrease with time because of friction... again, Newtonian Laws of physics.

this has caused physicists such as Stephen Hawking to question earlier theories of a Big Bang. It has prompted the creation of a new form of math, quantum physics. The more we think we know, the more we find out how little we actually know.

It MAY have come out of a black hole. A rip between 2 universes? I don't know. Do you?

We don't know why the universe is expanding faster and faster. They use to think it was going to come back. Now??? Do you know?

Even IF a black hole event or "rip" happened, you'd think the laws of physics would still apply. And yes, they USED to think... now they think something else... in the future, they may think something entirely different than what they now think... they don't stubbornly cling to the expanding/contracting universe theory like a bunch of doofuses.

And no, I don't know, but I am not the one claiming that we know things because the Big Bang happened... that is YOU who is saying this. I'm saying we don't KNOW the Big Bang ever happened, and there are plenty of unanswered questions about the universe and how it began.

One of the things you keep asking that perplexes me, is "what happened years before?" As if time somehow existed before the universe in which time is a dimension. It's like seeing a 2015 Cadillac on the highway and pondering where all it travelled during the American Revolution. You don't seem to understand that time didn't exist until the universe existed to enable it. That concept seems to completely fly over your head.

Yes it did get him to question his theories. That's what science does. Theists don't. You are a half breed theist much like you are probably a half breed indian. I get it.

Well, I am multi-breed, but that is beside the point here. Science is the practice of continuously examining questions. It does not draw conclusions, it can't. Once a conclusion has been reached, science is done, it can do no more. Science cannot explore or evaluate whenever the answers have all been concluded. Man is who assumes conclusions, often to the chagrin of science. Once man has determined a conclusion, whether from science or elsewhere, it becomes a matter of FAITH. Now, that faith may be well-rooted in clear scientific evidence, but it's still faith.

You are right about the more we know. But what we never get any closer to is that a god exists. In fact, we don't even consider a god when we contemplate but I'll tell you what we will do for you is keep an eye out for him and let you know if we find him. Until then, we see no god(s) out there.

Again, I disagree. The newest, most modern and forward-thinking science is that of quantum physics or quantum mechanics. This is the current pinnacle of science understood by mankind. In quantum theory is the contemplation of multiple universes and dimensions, in which our typical laws of physics may simply not apply. This clearly makes a "spiritual reality" more of a real possibility than ever before.

When we observe the advanced scientific work being done at the large hadron colliders, we see some amazing shit. Atoms... those tiny things that make up all matter, when busted open, contain all sorts of mystical elements... particles... subatomic level bits that give material things their various properties. Each and every atom contains a nucleus and orbiting electron or electrons, and these electrons behave in ways that appear to defy known physics. We hear atheists chortle about "invisible sky daddy" but every atom of every material thing contains electrons which completely disappear and reappear in different places, or appear in the same place at the same time.

What is your theory? A creature not bound by the laws of physics and the physical world did it all? And he loves you? Chances are if something made us, it doesn't even know you are alive. You're like a Tardigrade to me.

Again, you are trying to morph my beliefs into a religious theological argument you can mock and poke fun at. All I've said with regard to the universe is the obvious, something happened. Now, something happening doesn't "prove" anything but the fact that something happened means that something logically caused it to happen because nothing happens just because. Again... Newton's Laws of Motion say, for every action, there is an equal reaction. I'm simply deducing the logical obvious from what we know of science and physics here. You are the one who seems to not have an answer and cling to some fantasy notion of a universe which just up and one day decided to create itself from nothingness.... defying ALL we know about physics in the process.

So actually, I can entertain your idea of a creator. But please don't tell me you talk to him and he cares for you.

Well I've repeatedly corrected you on this notion that God "cares for you" and you just keep insisting it's what I believe. I do communicate with spiritual energy and I gain enormous blessings and benefits from doing so. I can highly recommend it to anyone who wants to give it a whirl, it does work. Now, I don't know about God as a "him" or if God "cares or loves" you. Some people do believe this, but it's part of their religious incarnations of God, which I don't have a problem with. I'm not going to say they are wrong, they may be absolutely correct and I could be wrong.

See, this is why I call you a half breed, just like your injun ancestory. You don't believe the organized religions, have your own theories on why something must have created, but like those organized religions, you too think this god cares for you and helps you? Talk about wanting to have it both ways... But I commend you on at least admitting organized religions are not necessary and they are wrong when they say believe them or burn in hell.

Again... I never said they weren't necessary or they were wrong. You keep wanting to juxtapose my beliefs with what you think I should believe, or what your atheist buddies have trained you to argue against. I don't get that... how many times do we have to go through this? I don't know what you mean by "have it both ways" here, I have not tried to have anything but one way. You are the one talking out of both sides of your mouth... we don't know, but yes... we do know! You just continually run from one to the other, contradicting yourself like some kind of clueless idiot.

But then you believe in heaven? Do you? Oh yea, you don't believe in "heaven" persay but some sort of non physical blablabla where your soul lives on. But a fish doesn't get to go to heaven. Funny a lot of what you believe comes from the bible. You are a bastard of christianity. LOL

I've already covered what I personally believe, along with the caveat that I don't know for certain what lies on the "other side" after physical existence is over. I've never said anything about "what gets to go to heaven" in any of my commentary. Where does this come from? Why do you constantly try to force my beliefs into religious theological concepts? I can only assume it's because this is how the atheists have trained you to think and react to God.

Let's go back a few paragraphs to science and the recent advent of quantum physics... if multiple universes and dimensions can exist, why can't a universe or dimension exist that we would consider, for all intents and purposes, that of a heaven or hell? Where an "intelligent designer" might reside? A place where our spiritual presence goes once our existence in a physical parameter of time/space has expired? I see no reason to discount or dismiss that possibility.

 

[BillyP]

So, after all the mumbo jumbo has died down, did anyone ever present some real proof of god?

 

[sealybobo]

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory. And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened. So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG.

so by what rationale do you reckon all this "stuff" floating around just up and decided to coalesce into a really tight ball? And what in heaven's name enabled the stuff to suddenly reverse that phenomenon and "bang" the stuff in a totally different direction?

There is no proof the Big Bang ever happened, it is only a theory.

the velocity of matter should decrease with time because of friction... again, Newtonian Laws of physics.

this has caused physicists such as Stephen Hawking to question earlier theories of a Big Bang. It has prompted the creation of a new form of math, quantum physics. The more we think we know, the more we find out how little we actually know.

It MAY have come out of a black hole. A rip between 2 universes? I don't know. Do you?

We don't know why the universe is expanding faster and faster. They use to think it was going to come back. Now??? Do you know?

Even IF a black hole event or "rip" happened, you'd think the laws of physics would still apply. And yes, they USED to think... now they think something else... in the future, they may think something entirely different than what they now think... they don't stubbornly cling to the expanding/contracting universe theory like a bunch of doofuses.

And no, I don't know, but I am not the one claiming that we know things because the Big Bang happened... that is YOU who is saying this. I'm saying we don't KNOW the Big Bang ever happened, and there are plenty of unanswered questions about the universe and how it began.

One of the things you keep asking that perplexes me, is "what happened years before?" As if time somehow existed before the universe in which time is a dimension. It's like seeing a 2015 Cadillac on the highway and pondering where all it travelled during the American Revolution. You don't seem to understand that time didn't exist until the universe existed to enable it. That concept seems to completely fly over your head.

Yes it did get him to question his theories. That's what science does. Theists don't. You are a half breed theist much like you are probably a half breed indian. I get it.

Well, I am multi-breed, but that is beside the point here. Science is the practice of continuously examining questions. It does not draw conclusions, it can't. Once a conclusion has been reached, science is done, it can do no more. Science cannot explore or evaluate whenever the answers have all been concluded. Man is who assumes conclusions, often to the chagrin of science. Once man has determined a conclusion, whether from science or elsewhere, it becomes a matter of FAITH. Now, that faith may be well-rooted in clear scientific evidence, but it's still faith.

You are right about the more we know. But what we never get any closer to is that a god exists. In fact, we don't even consider a god when we contemplate but I'll tell you what we will do for you is keep an eye out for him and let you know if we find him. Until then, we see no god(s) out there.

Again, I disagree. The newest, most modern and forward-thinking science is that of quantum physics or quantum mechanics. This is the current pinnacle of science understood by mankind. In quantum theory is the contemplation of multiple universes and dimensions, in which our typical laws of physics may simply not apply. This clearly makes a "spiritual reality" more of a real possibility than ever before.

When we observe the advanced scientific work being done at the large hadron colliders, we see some amazing shit. Atoms... those tiny things that make up all matter, when busted open, contain all sorts of mystical elements... particles... subatomic level bits that give material things their various properties. Each and every atom contains a nucleus and orbiting electron or electrons, and these electrons behave in ways that appear to defy known physics. We hear atheists chortle about "invisible sky daddy" but every atom of every material thing contains electrons which completely disappear and reappear in different places, or appear in the same place at the same time.

What is your theory? A creature not bound by the laws of physics and the physical world did it all? And he loves you? Chances are if something made us, it doesn't even know you are alive. You're like a Tardigrade to me.

Again, you are trying to morph my beliefs into a religious theological argument you can mock and poke fun at. All I've said with regard to the universe is the obvious, something happened. Now, something happening doesn't "prove" anything but the fact that something happened means that something logically caused it to happen because nothing happens just because. Again... Newton's Laws of Motion say, for every action, there is an equal reaction. I'm simply deducing the logical obvious from what we know of science and physics here. You are the one who seems to not have an answer and cling to some fantasy notion of a universe which just up and one day decided to create itself from nothingness.... defying ALL we know about physics in the process.

So actually, I can entertain your idea of a creator. But please don't tell me you talk to him and he cares for you.

Well I've repeatedly corrected you on this notion that God "cares for you" and you just keep insisting it's what I believe. I do communicate with spiritual energy and I gain enormous blessings and benefits from doing so. I can highly recommend it to anyone who wants to give it a whirl, it does work. Now, I don't know about God as a "him" or if God "cares or loves" you. Some people do believe this, but it's part of their religious incarnations of God, which I don't have a problem with. I'm not going to say they are wrong, they may be absolutely correct and I could be wrong.

See, this is why I call you a half breed, just like your injun ancestory. You don't believe the organized religions, have your own theories on why something must have created, but like those organized religions, you too think this god cares for you and helps you? Talk about wanting to have it both ways... But I commend you on at least admitting organized religions are not necessary and they are wrong when they say believe them or burn in hell.

Again... I never said they weren't necessary or they were wrong. You keep wanting to juxtapose my beliefs with what you think I should believe, or what your atheist buddies have trained you to argue against. I don't get that... how many times do we have to go through this? I don't know what you mean by "have it both ways" here, I have not tried to have anything but one way. You are the one talking out of both sides of your mouth... we don't know, but yes... we do know! You just continually run from one to the other, contradicting yourself like some kind of clueless idiot.

But then you believe in heaven? Do you? Oh yea, you don't believe in "heaven" persay but some sort of non physical blablabla where your soul lives on. But a fish doesn't get to go to heaven. Funny a lot of what you believe comes from the bible. You are a bastard of christianity. LOL

I've already covered what I personally believe, along with the caveat that I don't know for certain what lies on the "other side" after physical existence is over. I've never said anything about "what gets to go to heaven" in any of my commentary. Where does this come from? Why do you constantly try to force my beliefs into religious theological concepts? I can only assume it's because this is how the atheists have trained you to think and react to God.

Let's go back a few paragraphs to science and the recent advent of quantum physics... if multiple universes and dimensions can exist, why can't a universe or dimension exist that we would consider, for all intents and purposes, that of a heaven or hell? Where an "intelligent designer" might reside? A place where our spiritual presence goes once our existence in a physical parameter of time/space has expired? I see no reason to discount or dismiss that possibility.

Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way. Furthermore, when supernatural claims become sufficiently nebulous one may ask if there is any substantive difference between them being true and nothing existing at all.

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” – Tim Minchin

 

[sealybobo]

So, after all the mumbo jumbo has died down, did anyone ever present some real proof of god?

No. BUT, I have a theory. God fucked a black hole and his seed is what made us. He blew his wad and that was the big bang. He did it in a black hole so no one would know. He calls them glory holes. Feels like sex to a god but would rip your dick off. So his seed floated around until it all came together and the big bang happened. Trillions of years and his semen floated around and one day the part of his semen that holds life floated around in our meteor belt and one day something flew into the meteor belt and his spunk went all over the place landing on Earth, Mars and every other planet. We just happen to be in the goldilox zone. Not too far or too close to the sun. But his junk is on every planet.

NASA - NASA and University Researchers Find a Clue to How Life Turned Left

In 2000 a large meteoroid exploded in the atmosphere over northern British Columbia, Canada, and rained fragments across the frozen surface of Tagish Lake. pieces were collected within days and kept preserved in their frozen state. They continue to reveal more secrets about the early Solar System the more we investigate it," said Dr. Christopher Herd of the University of Alberta. The latest study gives us a glimpse into the role that water percolating through asteroids must have played in making the left-handed amino acids that are so characteristic of all life on Earth."

 

[sealybobo]

It'd be like if I came in a tissue, flushed it down the toilet and then 9 months later found out there are some mutant rat boys living in the sewer that look a lot like me. Our god hopes all the other gods don't find out about us. Maybe that's why he never visits. He's a deadbeat dad.

 

[Boss]

Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way...

Science does observe. explore and evaluate the known physical universe and beyond. It does make models, predictions of probability, develops theories, posits concepts, ponders possibility. Those are the amazing and fascinating things about Science. Of the things you currently call "natural phenomena" you can explain very little to anyone as to why it happens. The best you can do is explain how the process works, how it happens.

Human spiritual connection most certainly DOES interact with the physical universe. This should be obvious to anyone who is not a monkey. Light, motion, sound, heat, mass and gravity... ALL involve atoms. At the atomic and subatomic levels, God's Miracle is proven. We learn that the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is, as Einstein puts it, a persistent illusion. You can't explain why, no matter how much you explain how.

Furthermore, when supernatural claims become sufficiently nebulous one may ask if there is any substantive difference between them being true and nothing existing at all.

And that's why I reject the notion of "Supernatural" gods. There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Well now you're running back to the parmeters of physical sciences which we've already determined cannot apply. Why are you going there? Anything that cannot be proven false is very much possible... in fact, many things we have thought to be proven impossible have turned out to be actually very possible. Many times, we have thought something to be proven impossible, only to discover that is not the case. If you admit that you can't prove God impossible, then by default, we must assume that God is possible. There can be no other logic to apply here.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” – Tim Minchin

And if all you were doing in this thread were coming here to say that you don't know, you're not sure, you honestly believe that a God may or may not exist and you're just not certain... that would be Fine and Dandy, Peaches and Cream! Where you're getting blowback is from you making these statements of ambiguity, not being sure, not knowing... then before you can type another idiotic paragraph, you've suddenly become bold enough to claim science has all but disproved God. Science, which we all agree, cannot evaluate or examine God, also cannot "disprove" God. You want to ignore that and make claims which are not true.

Faith is not denial of observation, and the idiot who said that is more stupid than you. Faith is belief in something not in evidence. It can apply to science... you do have faith that effects of gravity will behave the same in a future time space yet to happen in reality. We do have faith that 1+1=2 will be the same tomorrow. Humans have had faith in a power greater than self for all of our existence.

 

[Boss]

So, after all the mumbo jumbo has died down, did anyone ever present some real proof of god?

You should read the OP.... nothing has been refuted from there. Sooo.....

 

[sealybobo]

Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way...

Science does observe. explore and evaluate the known physical universe and beyond. It does make models, predictions of probability, develops theories, posits concepts, ponders possibility. Those are the amazing and fascinating things about Science. Of the things you currently call "natural phenomena" you can explain very little to anyone as to why it happens. The best you can do is explain how the process works, how it happens.

Human spiritual connection most certainly DOES interact with the physical universe. This should be obvious to anyone who is not a monkey. Light, motion, sound, heat, mass and gravity... ALL involve atoms. At the atomic and subatomic levels, God's Miracle is proven. We learn that the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is, as Einstein puts it, a persistent illusion. You can't explain why, no matter how much you explain how.

Furthermore, when supernatural claims become sufficiently nebulous one may ask if there is any substantive difference between them being true and nothing existing at all.

And that's why I reject the notion of "Supernatural" gods. There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Well now you're running back to the parmeters of physical sciences which we've already determined cannot apply. Why are you going there? Anything that cannot be proven false is very much possible... in fact, many things we have thought to be proven impossible have turned out to be actually very possible. Many times, we have thought something to be proven impossible, only to discover that is not the case. If you admit that you can't prove God impossible, then by default, we must assume that God is possible. There can be no other logic to apply here.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” – Tim Minchin

And if all you were doing in this thread were coming here to say that you don't know, you're not sure, you honestly believe that a God may or may not exist and you're just not certain... that would be Fine and Dandy, Peaches and Cream! Where you're getting blowback is from you making these statements of ambiguity, not being sure, not knowing... then before you can type another idiotic paragraph, you've suddenly become bold enough to claim science has all but disproved God. Science, which we all agree, cannot evaluate or examine God, also cannot "disprove" God. You want to ignore that and make claims which are not true.

Faith is not denial of observation, and the idiot who said that is more stupid than you. Faith is belief in something not in evidence. It can apply to science... you do have faith that effects of gravity will behave the same in a future time space yet to happen in reality. We do have faith that 1+1=2 will be the same tomorrow. Humans have had faith in a power greater than self for all of our existence.

Is this a fact? "the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion."

And I don't think this is a fact: "There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

We know this? Who's we? Does science know this?

 

[Boss]

Is this a fact? "the special nature of everything material we perceive as "reality in a physical universe" is a persistent illusion."

It's a famous quote from Einstein. I am simply repeating what a brilliant scientist once said. It IS a fact that electrons disappear, reappear and can exist in two places at the same time. Odd characteristics for something of the physical universe, but it's the truth.

And I don't think this is a fact: "There is one God, one true universal spiritual nature. It's not "supernatural" it's as natural as physical nature. It's a part of what we experience as beings of a physical universe. We know this, it is proven, it's not questionable.

We know this? Who's we? Does science know this?

Yes, we know this. Science knows this. There is nothing supernatural about human spirituality and you've never offered anything to prove that case. You may say spirituality involves the metaphysical, but metaphysical doesn't mean supernatural. So each and every time you make this statement it is erroneous and without support. It defies what we already know.